Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

96 Cal. 182

McCobmick v. Belvin

California Supreme Court

Decided September 9, 1892

California Supreme Court · decided 1892-09-09

Motion to dismiss appeals from a judgment and two orders of the Superior Court of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Relies on Home & Loan Associates v. Wilkins · Corcoran v. Desmond

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1892-09-09

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently June 1940

7 state decisions

30189219001910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

The Court.

¶1— This is a motion by respondent to dis-

¶2miss three appeals, upon the ground of want of undertaking on appeal.

¶3The appellant, by one notice of appeal, gave notice *183that he appealed from the judgment entered in the case; from an order denying appellants’ motion to dismiss the action; and also from an order denying appellants’ motion to set aside the judgment by default. Only one undertaking on appeal was given, in the sum of three hundred dollars; and it did not refer separately to either of the appeals. “ The undertaking is no undertaking at all”; and there is no remedy under section 954 of the the Code of Civil Procedure. (Home and Loan Association v. Wilkins, 71 Cal. 626; Corcoran v. Desmond, 71 Cal. 100.) One of the orders, at least, was appealable, — the order denying the motion to set aside the default judgment.

¶4The appeals are dismissed.

/96/cal/182 · .json · Public domain